NIVRUTTI MARUTI LASHKAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 3 (1), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice was issued by registered post on the earlier occasion. We also notice that the bench had granted adjournment at the specific request of the assessee in one occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

We heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) also, despite giving six opportunities. Hence the learned CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal ex-parte.

Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the learned CIT(A) in order to enable him to pass a reasoned order adjudicating all the grounds urged by the assessee before him. However, we are of the view that the assessee should be imposed a cost for being delinquent before the learned CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department as other fees within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of the above said cost, which shall be verified by the learned CIT(A), all the issues are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.